116 Continuous vs. discontinuous arrhythmia monitoring in patients with myocarditis: insights from a single-centre experience

Abstract

Abstract Aims Although potentially life-threatening, arrhythmias in myocarditis are under-reported. To assess diagnostic yield and clinical impact of continuous arrhythmia monitoring (CAM) in patients with arrhythmic myocarditis. Methods and results We enrolled consecutive adult patients (n = 104; 71% males, age 47 ± 11 years, mean LVEF 50 ± 13%) with biopsy-proven active myocarditis and de novo ventricular arrhythmias (VA). All patients underwent prospective monitoring by both sequential 24-h Holter ECGs (4/y in the first year; 2/y in years 2–5; 1/y later) and CAM, including either ICD (n = 62; 60%) or loop recorder (n = 42; 40%). By 3.7 ± 1.6 year follow-up, 45 patients (43%) had VT, 67 (64%) NSVT, and 102 (98%) premature ventricular complexes (PVCs). As compared to Holter ECG (average 9.5 exams per patient), CAM identified more patients with VA (VT: 45 vs. 4; NSVT: 64 vs. 45; both P < 0.001), more VA episodes (VT: 100 vs. 4%; NSVT: 91 vs. 12%), and earlier NSVT timing (median 6 vs. 24 months, P < 0.001). Conversely, Holter ECG allowed VA morphology characterization and daily PVC quantification. The time to first treatment modification was 12 ± 9 months by CAM vs. 33 ± 16 months by Holter ECG (P < 0.001), and drug withdrawal was always CAM-dependent. Guided by CAM findings, 8 patients (8%) started anticoagulants for newly diagnosed atrial arrhythmias. Differently from ICDs, loop recorders did not interfere with the interpretation of cardiac magnetic resonance. Conclusions In patients with arrhythmic myocarditis, CAM allowed accurate arrhythmia detection and showed a considerable clinical impact. As a complementary exam, VA characterization and PVC burden were better assessed by repeated Holter ECGs.